Archive for April, 2012

So much for the prosecution’s duty to seek justice and not a conviction.  Once again gamesmanship prevails, in this case the DA (somehow) got an order from the court that the defense NOT be allowed to discuss or expose the details of a plea agreement between the DA and witness.  Fortunately the appellate court sought […]


A single grant of consent does not, as a matter of law, prohibit more than one search. An officer may conduct more than one search if, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would conclude that any subsequent search fell within the boundaries of the defendant’s consent.      People v. Valencia First of […]


Defendant’s admissions that he pointed shotgun alongside accomplice–as accomplice aimed rifle at intended victim–and pulled the trigger to make a “click” noise, thereby emboldening accomplice to shoot, were sufficient to support firearms enhancement, even if shotgun was inoperable and unseen by anyone else. There is no requirement that victim see or perceive firearm for enhancement […]


Defendant charged with DUI with injury and related offenses was entitled to sua sponte instruction under Penal Code Sec. 26, which exempts from criminal responsibility persons who committed the act charged “without being conscious thereof,” where there was evidence supporting defendant’s theory that he could not be found guilty because the reason he crossed double […]


To support a probation search, officers needed only a “reasonable suspicion” to conclude that the probationer owned, controlled, or possessed an item within the probationer’s residence, and did not have to meet the higher standard of probable cause.      United States v. Bolivar – filed February 29, 2012 I’m sure you are all aware by […]


Where “first wave” responders to shooting scene conducted a protective sweep to search for victims and suspects, and to give aid to any victim, and saw evidence in plain view but did not seize it–because it would have hampered their primary duty and could have made what appeared to be a dangerous situation even more […]


Defendant’s Arizona conviction for driving while impaired was not categorically equivalent to a California DUI conviction where the level of impairment required for conviction under the Arizona law was less than that required in California. Trial court erred in relying on handwritten notations on Arizona judgment form to find that defendant’s conduct in the Arizona […]